Thursday, February 10, 2005

Decoding The Cipher of Genesis

Decoding The Cipher of Genesis

"quasi-local approach" ... "super-potential, which is a Hamiltonian boundary term" "screen" of World Hologram i.e. local horizon on (anti) De Sitter space-time with Hawking radiation? That is the gravity energy only depends on the horizon surface not on local space volume elements! 3D Space is a holographic image! See p. 16 section E of Brazilian paper. They go on to get a local representation in the complementary or dual gauge-force picture that is physically equivalent to the nonlocal geometrodynamic picture.

The Brazilians Arcos & Pereira (2005) discuss the nonlocality of the gravity energy in Einstein's geometrodynamic representation with curvature and no torsion that is Bohr complementary to the gauge force representation with torsion and no curvature. However the Brazilian "torsion" should not be confused with Gennady Shipov's torsion. They are entirely different and different words should be used.

My own macro-quantum theory, for the emergence of Einstein's curvature in the post-inflationary "Higgs Ocean" (Brian Greene) AKA "multi-layered multi-colored" cosmic superconducting field (Frank Wilczek) AKA partial cohering of the pre-inflationary random micro-quantum zero point false vacuum fluctuations, is more naturally set in the Brazilian gauge force representation initially although I immediately transform to Einstein's orthodox geometrodynamical representation as more heuristic for getting new insights.

Recall that the pre-inflationary unstable false vacuum is a conformal vacuum without gravitation or inertia admitting only massless lepto-quark and boson gauge force special relativistic quantum fields. U(1)SU(2)SU(3) is locally gauged in the false vacuum. No part of the 15 parameter conformal group is locally gauged pre-inflation.

real angles of rotation of an extended rigid body have imaginary extensions that are equivalent to the "rapidities" of the Lorentz boosts.

Spontaneous breaking of O(3) rotation group symmetry in the ground state of many spinning electrons is ferromagnetism. Ferromagnetism is a preferred frame of orientation in space without explicit O(3) breaking terms in the dynamical action.

Similarly, data like Cahill's and Consoli's claiming a preferred Lorentz inertial frame would, if corroborated, merely mean spontaneous breakdown of the O(1,3) group in the physical vacuum, particularly its boost sector. The preferred frame of absolute rest means a set of rapidities are chosen in a finite region of vacuum just like a set of rotation angles (only latitude and longitude on the celestial sphere, twist rotation (torsion field?) about the preferred space direction is another issue using ALL THREE Euler angles, is chosen in a finite domain of the ferromagnetic ground state.

Einstein, not knowing about spontaneous symmetry breakdown in 1905, thought of the space of global inertial frames (pre-GR 1916) as an affine space without a preferred origin. Lorentz thought of this space of frames as a vector space with an origin. This is a real experimental difference, but it is contingent not fundamental. The way the symmetry breaks in a ferromagnetic domain is contingent like a pimple on one's nose. Similarly, for Cahill's claim - a small blemish on Einstein's nose for The Truth! :-)

All dynamics comes from the minimal coupling local gauge principle of different symmetry groups both internal and external in 4D space-time. Roger Penrose says extra space dimensions are unstable so let's see if we can do without them. No supersymmetry needed as yet either since I predict supersymmetry will not be found in the LHC and also that dark matter detectors will never click with the right stuff, e.g. on-mass-shell neutralinos et-al do not exist. These are falsifiable predictions.

From Stormy Dirac Sea to Calm Higgs Ocean (Oil upon The Waters of Creation)

Looking only, for now, at the low-energy tail of the false pre-inflationary conformal vacuum sans gravity and inertia, both emergent properties, the Dirac negative energy virtual Fermi energy is E = 0 and the zero point PV virtual electron-positron pairs in a small thickness of the Fermi surface form virtual bound states fusing into the zero entropy BEC vacuum condensate "Higgs Ocean" that trigger the inflation and the emergence of Einstein's gravity along with all rest masses m and both dark energy and dark matter.

Post-inflation, the Cartan tetrad encoding the important part of the equivalence principle (EEP) is

eu^a = (Kronecker Delta)u^a + Bu^a

Bu = Bu^aPa/h = (Higgs Ocean Goldstone Phase),u

{Pa} is Lie algebra of T4

i.e. the non-trivial curved intrinsic part - the actual or "real" gravitational field that is locally equivalent to an inertial field in a local non-inertial frame of reference, AKA "LNIF"

This is a spontaneous broken locally-gauged U(1)em vacuum symmetry exactly like in the BCS superconductor where, instead of on-mass-shell charged 2e electron pairs, we have neutral virtual electron-positron pairs in an off-mass-shell "bound state". The result is a locally-gauged T4 dynamical non-trivial tetrad field eu^a emergent from the spontaneous broken U(1)em vacuum symmetry. The release of binding energy of the virtual electron-positron pairs powers the Big Bang.

Message from Cahill

bccOn Jul 6, 2005, at 4:39 AM, Reg Cahill wrote:

Hi Jack,

What a story! It seems to me that you are approaching the issues from the wrong direction and whence the incredibly complicated path.

Seems pretty simple to me. Local gauge invariance and spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry are two very well battle-tested ideas in physics today. :-)

The first issue is to get clear picture of what has emerged. The interferometer experiments have shown that (i) absolute motion is detectable, and (ii) that Newtonian physics is wrong.

Yes, I understand that. I have not understood all the technical details of the experiments in your paper(s) nor those of Consoli. The two of you seem to differ in some important details although generally you are reporting the same kind of qualitative effect. You get different absolute speeds in different directions I think? But neither are zero and that's the point. By "Newtonian physics" I assume you mean specifically "Galilean relativity" as distinct from Lorentz-Einsteinian relativity, i.e.

x -> x' = x - vt

t -> t' = t

is wrong (e.g. Ch 15, Panofsky & Phillips)

x -> x' = [1 - (v/c)^2]^-1/2(x - vt)

t -> t' = [1 - (v/c)^2]^-1/2(t - vx/c^2)

is correct even when there is a preferred global inertial frame that we call "absolute rest". Also for now we try to neglect general relativity, although that may not be possible in the end for these measurements.

This followed after the discovery that a theory for the interferometer must take account of relativistic effects and the effect of the refractive index of the gas present (Cahill and Kitto 2002). The results were confirmed by two coaxial cable experiments, which being 1st order in v/c don't need relativistic effect corrections. Then it follows that we have relativistic effects as well as absolute motion. This fits neatly in with the original 19th century Lorentz interpretation, namely that absolute motion is the cause of relativistic effects.

Can you elaborate on that? Exactly how is it the "cause"?

It also means that the Einstein-Minkowski interpretation of these same effects is wrong..there is no spacetime.

Can you elaborate on that? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary explanation. :-) My position, as you may have gathered is that there is no major change of interpretation needed assuming your experiments and Consoli's similar ones, stand the test of scrutiny. Renouncing the battle-tested special relativity i.e.

Require dynamical actions to be Lorentz-invariant with Lorentz-covariant Euler-Lagrange equations, with standard modifications of general relativity, is not at all affected, with all its consequences for the computation of scattering cross sections, atomic & nuclear spectra etc.

We do not have put in O(3) violating terms in the action for the Heisenberg ferromagnet with the Coulomb exchange interaction in order to explain the O(3) violation in the ferromagnetic ground state. In exactly the same way, we do not need to put O(1,3) violating terms in the actions of the fundamental quantum fields of physics (lepto-quark fermions and gauge force bosons) to explain your reports of O(1,3) violation in the vacuum.

Indeed, spontaneous symmetry breaking of the lowest energy state of a given model of quantum dynamics is the very definition of what a "preferred frame of reference" means for all groups and all actions. This is an explanation "for all seasons" as it were. :-)

So the speed of light is c only relative to this space, and not relative to all non-accelerating observers.

That's so in a more general sense for all instances of spontaneous symmetry breakdown leaving the kinematics and the dynamics intact. Every symmetry group G defines its own class of "frames of reference" i.e. base states for a given representation of G. In the case of O(1,3) in real space-time we have the class of global inertial frames. The only significantdifference between Einstein's interpretation of O(1,3) and Lorentz's is that Einstein says that the space of frames is affine, and Lorentz says that it's a vector space with an "origin" = "preferred frame" = a chosen "rapidity" in the space-time vacuum just like the chosen "space orientation" in the ferromagnetic ground state. Occam's Razor is with me here. More with less.

So Einstein's main postulate is disproved by experiment.

I do not think you have proved that. Indeed, I think I just proved the very opposite! :-)

Nevertheless one can use a mathematical spacetime, because the spacetime encodes absolute motion effects, albeit in a manner that is well hidden.

You need to explain that in a lot more detail. :-)

So we have a 3-space and separately a time phenomenon. The 3-space is in relative motion, that is, different regions of it have relative motion, as well that motion is time-dependent.

I am not sure what you mean. Let's think of a ferromagnet. Is it like the buckling of tectonic plates? The different ferromagnetic domains are pressing against each other? This is no problem in vacuum because the vacuum has a local macro-quantum order parameter, e.g. Frank Wilczek's "multi-layered, multi-colored" cosmic superconducting field. (Nature Jan 20, 2005 "In Search of Symmetry Lost").

Presumably this space has some substratum structure, and that structure has relative motion. These two effects cause gravity.

How? Now I have shown exactly how. No if's and's and but's - but the actual equations.

An interferometer or coaxial cable device can detect motion relative to that space.

Yeah, no problemo, once one has the idea of spontaneous broken symmetry with the vacuum condensate as the "aether" or substratum. Frank Wilczek explains this pretty well in Jan 20, 2005 Nature. I suggest you look at it. :-)

That by itself does'nt imply some preferred direction intrinsic to the space..rather it simply means that the device is moving through that space.

You do not get my point. The ferromagnet is only an analogy. I never said that your data show a preferred direction in space. What I said was that your data, and Consoli's, if true show a preferred direction in space-time i.e. rapidity i.e. absolute velocity. So the preferred direction in space is a Red Herring. :-)

The intrinsic local direction in space is determined by the direction of the convective acceleration (=the spatial inhomogeneity direction) and the time-dependence of the velocity field.

I don't understand this. I assume this is your "flow" theory that I have not read in detail. It is not needed. It is too ad-hoc, too Rube Goldberg and we already have exactly what we need in the two battle-tested ideas of modern theoretical physics

1. Local gauge symmetry inducing compensating connection fields.

2. Spontaneous breaking of the meta-stable state of lowest energy for the covariant dynamics relative to the above local gauge symmetry.

It works in the heavens of the internal dimensions (electro-weak/strong) as well as on the ground of being (space-time with gravity and maybe torsion and other fields).

We now know all this because (i) the Miller data is so extensive that one can extract from it the flow past the earth towards the sun (some 42 km/s), as well as galactic flow and turbulence (novel non-Einsteinain gravity waves) in that flow, (ii) both Newtonian gravity and GR (in those cases where it has been successfully tested) can be written in the form of a flow theory. Most importantly these flow formalisms can be generalised, and the new dynamical effects turn out to be the so-called `dark matter' effect.

I have a complete explanation of both gravitating "dark matter" and anti-gravitating "dark energy" in terms of Einstein's

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

and spontaneous breakdown of U(1)em vacuum symmetry. Done elsewhere.

This non-relativistic gravity effect is not in either NG or GR, so even NG is serioulsy wrong. That new effect has been tested against various experiments and observations as well. We are developing experiments at Flinders university to measure the flow component into the earth (the inhomogeneity of that flow is the cause of the earth's gravity, speed at surface is 11km/s). Because this is small compared to the galactic flow (some 400km/s) the earth in-flow is not easy to measure.

Well we will not settle this now. My position is that everything you see, if corroborated, can be explained simply and directly with only two battle-tested mainstream ideas

The Great Temple of Theoretical Physics Today rests firmly on the above two pillars and you are not Samson! :-)

Penrose, Hawking, Rees et-al can sleep in comfort tonite that you will not pull their covers off in the middle of a cold winter's night. :-)

Now what does that all give us? Take the simplest case first. (Classical) Maxwell's equations have a well known spacetime/covariant form. In that form the speed of light in vacuum is always c. But what does that really mean? How does one measure that? Well one can simply use a rod and clock, and sure enough one will find that the speed of light, no matter which observer does the measurment, and even for different observers in relative motion, all will find the speed to be c=300,000km/s. Howver we now know that an observer can measure the velocity of his rods and clocks through space. That motion will have changed their length/ticking rate. Then each observer must correct the data from his experiment..after all his rods/clocks are being affected by their motion. He will then find that the corrected speed is now only c relative to a particular frame, namely relative to a real 3-space.

I would need to see the detailed math for that. When I do the math I always get c as a the fixed point even when there is a preferred frame. Maybe I am doing something wrong? We shall see. However, Hal Puthoff will LOVE your theory here since it sounds very much like his PV theory in his Tables I & II! On the other hand, I bet you are wrong. I could be wrong of course and you could be right - we shall see. :-)

I will come back to this in the coming days.

So Maxwell's equations actually encode real physical effects of absolute motion upon the rods and clocks which are used to `define' the length and time scales. So these equations have BOTH absolute motion effects and the dynamics of the E and B fields. Then one can write Maxwell's equations in a form that explicitly reveals the preferred frame, and so separates these two effects.

Have you done that? Where?

This involves a non-linear change of variables. It leads to PDEs in which the partial time derivative is replaced by the Euler total derivative (which involves the velocity of the observer, and so the rods and clocks, relative to the 3-space). The covariant equations have Lorentz symmetry (of course). The new Maxwell equations have Galilean symmetry. Both symmetries are exact. They are being applied to different forms of the data. In the case of Lorentz symmetry the dynamical effects of absolute motion and the E-B field dynamics are not separated. In the Galilean form the absolute motion effects upon the rods and clocks are separated from the E-B dynamics, and we are left with a clean description of the E-B dynamics.

This sounds terribly complicated and I can assure you you have a steep Cliff to climb that will require a lot of Will. I do not think this story of yours will go over very well with the Top Guns of GR 17 for example. I'm sure you know that? :-) In any case where is this done in detail. I am sure Zielinski will read it for example. Also others. I am sure you will be proved wrong in the end of course. We need a Bookie. :-)

So the whole issue of covariance in physics has been incredibly misleading.

Have you read Tom Phipps "Heretical Vereties"? Some of your stuff about the convective derivative sounds like his?

It was simply gross confusion. Whence it is very misleading to try to understand the new physics by beginning with a covariant language, and then attempting to come up with some symmetry breaking that results in a preferred frame. This one sentence is the main point of this response to your suggestion, Jack.

Well fancy this, me defending the mainstream establishment against The Barbarian at The Gate from Down Under! :-) Time for a beer Mate? In any case you need to explain this in great detail - presumably you have already done so. However, as I say, no one will believe you. Also I think my explanation is better and simpler, but I am biased. :-)

I should add that a great deal of the new physics has been worked out already, particularly re: gravity.One major discovery has been that the new theory of gravity involves the fine structure constant (that wasn't a prediction..but it emerged from the data). Some 25 paper re all this are available at the Mountanman graphics URL below. Much more in preparation. There is a revolution in progress.

Your enthusiasm is touching. :-)

PS By sending this reply e-mail to you Jack I'm not sure if others in the group also receive it?

Never fear, they will. They will. We have both drawn our lines in the sand.:-)

best wishes,

Reg Cahill

Look at the well known U(1) case for EM.

Start with a free electron wave psi. Require that its phase be arbitrary at each point. In order to keep the action of the electron invariant under the internal group U(1) we need to introduce a compensating field Au in which the electron momentum operator ih,u is replaced by the gauge covariant partial derivative operator ih,u - (e/c)Au on psi. Au is a connection field in the internal fiber for path-dependent parallel transport of geometric objects in the fiber bundle. The Maxwell EM field is the U(1) covariant "curl" of Au i.e. "curvature" in the fiber space. General relativity can be done the same way by locally gauging the translations T4 instead of internal U(1).

Enter the "preferred frame" of spontaneous symmetry breaking. In the case of U(1) there is a local MACRO-QUANTUM order parameter PSI for the lowest energy state whose local phase is no longer arbitrary, but is "phase-locked" over a large space-time domain into a long-range coherence. This is also called "generalized phase rigidity". This frozen macro-pattern of phase coherence selects out a preferred global frame in the internal U(1) phase space. The quantum of the Au field acquires a rest mass (super conducting Meissner effect) from the massless Goldstone mode of small vibrations of the phase of PSI that has an effective nonlinear "Mexican Hat" potential in its nonlinear-nonunitary-local Landau-Ginzburg equation of motion that replaces the linear-unitary-nonlocal Schrodinger-Dirac equation of micro-quantum theory. This is the simplest case of the Higgs mechanism for the origin of inertia. The Haisch-Puthoff ZPF friction is only a small perturbation on that.

Unlike micro-quantum waves that are projective rays subject to the Born probability alogorithm, PSI is not a projective ray, it does not collapse easily, i.e. it is not "fragile" and it is immune from the slings and arrows of Zurek's environmental decoherence (a desirable property for a conscious mind field piloting the living brain).

OK, now turn to the alleged Cahill/Consoli claims (though they differ from each other in important details of magnitude and direction of the Earth's absolute velocity) of physically significant shifting of fringes and beat frequencies upon 90 degree rotations of Michelson-Morley inteferometers and pairs of He-Ne lasers respectively.

Think of the ferromagnet. Its pseudo-vector order parameter is a preferred frame of spatial orientation in a finite space domain of its ground state. This is a spontaneous (not a dynamical) breakdown of O(3) symmetry analogous to the above U(1) breakdown.

The space orientation when multiplied by i (i^2 = -1) becomes a the space-time orientation, or "rapidity" of the boost part of the Lorentz group O(1,3) where sin(orientation in space) -> sinh(rapidity)

Rapidity = orientation in space-time i.e. velocity.

Spontaneous breakdown of O(1,3) in the vacuum therefore selects out a preferred rapidity, i.e. a preferred velocity "zero", just like the ferromagnet selects out a preferred direction in space that we call the "origin" in the abstract space of relevant frames of reference.

In general, spontaneous breakdown of a symmetry group in the lowest energy state (metastable local minima on a landscape) of the dynamics whose action is invariant under the group, means that the hitherto affine space of reference frames morphs to a vector space of frames with an "origin" i.e. the preferred frame.

OK, if this in happening in the physical vacuum in which Earth moves then we need a vacuum order parameter, but we also need a compensating gauge connection field like Au photon in the case of U(1), or like the weak force bosons in the case of SU(2), or like the strong force gluons in the case of SU(3). Well the vacuum order parameter is Frank Wilczek's "multi-layered multi-colored" field of cosmic superconductivity where my PSI to derive Einstein's gravity is in a particular large-scale "layer". The "colors" metaphorically mean the Lie algebra. The "layers" refer to a set of Lie groups that are the dynamical symmetries of the actions of effective field theories in the context of renormalization group flows to fixed points with emergent Lie group symmetries (e.g. Volovik's book "The Universe in a Helium Droplet").

If we have a gauge field like Au, it must be Gennady Shipov's torsion field Tu, where

Tu = eu^aAa^b^cSab

eu^a is the locally-gauged T4 tetrad that gives Einstein's 1916 GR

{Sab} is the Lie algebra of O(1,3)

Aa^b^c are the Ricci rotation coefficients that are globally constant in 1916 GR, but become independent variable dynamical fields, in addition to eu^a when O(1,3) is locally gauged.

Therefore, it may be that the Cahill/Consoli allegations, if corroborated, are evidence for a cosmic torsion field in which Earth is moving?